Focus on the Father
Part One: Dog Whistle
by Patricia Goldsmith
www.dissidentvoice.org
July 25, 2005

The
continuing intense polarization of our country is a direct result of the
dominant Republican Party’s refusal to fragment, even in the face of
massive corruption, ongoing scandals, and George Bush’s free fall in the
polls. This unity is made possible, no doubt, by corporate ownership of
the media, but it is driven by a wartime mindset -- and I don’t mean Iraq.

As far as most
liberals are concerned, however, the Culture War is like a high-pitched
dog whistle: outside their range of perception. But you better believe the
attack dogs of the right hear it. There is a reason they all start
howling at the same time.

Bill Clinton was
different. His success was based on understanding the Culture War in his
bones. I believe his tactics were often misguided, but there is no doubt
that he saw a country splitting along ideological lines and, for a time,
managed to keep the rift from exploding. Or rather, he limited the
explosions to his own person. That explains why Clinton, who really was a
uniter, is most often described as a polarizing president. He was always,
for better or for worse, aware of the alternate reality being promulgated
by the rightwing education/spin/attack machine, and he was always reaching
out across the lines, refusing to let them harden.

Clinton advised gay
people to come out: “Just keep telling your stories.” He changed the
environment in which we live, by responding emotionally and symbolically.
When Matthew Shepard was murdered, for example, Bill Clinton treated it as
if it were an important event. He mourned. This was the first time in my
memory that a hate crime against a homosexual received respectful national
attention.

What Clinton did was
so powerful that the right, always alert to the emotional impact of
symbols, has latched onto Matthew Shepard for its own purposes. In a
little-noted but extremely frightening gesture, George Bush made October
12 National Defense of Marriage Day. It just so happens that October 12
is the date of Matthew Shepard’s death. This is one of those coded
messages George Bush is always sending to “the base” -- and what an
unintentionally apt name that is in this case.

Clinton, always
straddling the divide, balanced his emotional support of basic gay rights
with “compromise” legislation like Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell, which was an
unmitigated disaster, causing the outing and dismissal of untold numbers
of gay people in the military. He also supported DOMA, the federal Defense
of Marriage Act, which provides that same-sex marriage is limited to the
states that pass such laws and cannot be used to argue for marriage rights
in other states.

Intentionally or
not, I believe Clinton did us a favor with DOMA, buying precious
organizing time for gay rights organizations, and spurring us to pursue
domestic partnership benefits state by state, in court, and in the
corporate world. It has been a solid success. Indeed, as civil liberties
have been shrinking in general, gay rights, almost uniquely, have bucked
the trend.

In “Beyond Gay
Marriage,” in the July 18/25 issue of The Nation, Lisa Duggan and
Richard Kim note that “ . . . there is increasing support for basic gay
human rights. Large majorities favor employment and housing rights for
gay people (89 percent in the latest Gallup poll), and a clear majority of
Americans support some form of partnership recognition for same-sex
couples -- either marriage or civil unions (60 percent at the time of the
election).” More importantly, we all know the statistics showing that
opposition to gay marriage is generational, suggesting that in 20 or 30
years, there will be majority support for full gay equality.

The right wing is
very well aware of these statistics, too; they need accurate information
just as much as we do when it comes to devising winning strategies. Let’s
never forget that Karl Rove made his money as a direct-mail marketer; he
has a very sophisticated understanding of demographics. The difference
between the left and the right, when it comes to polling, is that the
right uses polls to devise winning strategies, while the left uses polls
to set goals. But what is most critical -- and this is Rove’s genius --
is the ability to understand exactly what it is that is being measured.

I received a vital
bit of information on that subject when I read Gene Gerard’s recent
article, “Gay
Marriage Critics Are Misguided.” (Dissident Voice, July 14,
2005) Gerard cites a study by Steven P. Martin, which not only shows that
the statistical factor most closely correlated with divorce is lack of
education, but that lack of education among women is the strongest
predictor of divorce. Women who have graduate degrees have only a 15
percent divorce rate after ten years of marriage, as compared to 39
percent of women who have not finished high school, a whopping 24 percent
difference. Men with the same educational levels show only a five percent
difference in divorce rates.

Martin’s study fit
snugly with another well-known statistical pattern: the fact that red
states have higher divorce rates than blue ones. Tellingly, the state with
the lowest divorce rate is also the sole state to legalize gay marriage:
Massachusetts. Other deep blue states with some of the lowest divorce
rates in the country are Vermont, New Jersey, and Connecticut, all of
which have some sort of civil union laws for gay people.

Conversely, the
Bible belt states of Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma, among many others, have
some of the highest divorce rates in the nation.

Taken together,
these studies demonstrate, first and most obviously, that gay marriage
correlates positively with low divorce rates. To liberals, these
statistics are solid evidence that convincingly rebuts charges about the
apocalyptic effect of gay marriage on the traditional institution. But
liberals and conservatives are not measuring the same things. We can only
make sense of conservative claims if we understand that what is at stake
is not the actual institution of marriage, which can be measured in
statistical terms, but the continued existence of a certain hierarchy of
power relationships, especially within marriage and families.

Put it this way:
it’s similar to the difference between being genetically and anatomically
male and being what Dobson and others might think of as “a real man.”

If we then realize
that women’s lack of education is a significant quantifier of female
inequality, the correlation between women’s lack of education and divorce
meshes beautifully with statistics about higher break-up rates in Bible
belt states and among self-described born-again Christians. It makes
perfect sense that a man who requires an unequal relationship, one who
believes in hierarchy and traditional male privilege, might wed a woman
with little education and few economic options. Problem is, the real world
-- or the wicked world, depending on your point of view -- offers women
too many easy outs from their proper, traditional role.

That is why James
Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family and author of Marriage Under
Fire: Why We Must Win This Battle, is intent on opposing not just the
radical human equality of gay marriage, but many other measures that
support women’s equality: no-fault divorce, economic benefits/rights for
heterosexual cohabitation outside of marriage, abortion, and even easy
adult access to contraception. If there were truth in advertising, Dobson
would have to call his group Focus on the Father.

When a wife believes
in her husband and deeply respects him, he gains the confidence necessary
to compete successfully and live responsibly. She gives him a reason to
harness his masculine energy -- to build a home, obtain and keep a job,
help her raise their children, remain sober, live within the law, spend
money wisely, etc. Without positive feminine influence, his tendency is to
release the power of testosterone in a way that is destructive to society
at large…. Successful marriages serve to “civilize” and domesticate
masculinity, which is not only in the best interests of women, but is
vital for the protection and welfare of the next generation.

And what do women
get out of the deal? Well . . . men. Isn’t that enough?

Conversely, a woman
typically has deep longings that can only be satisfied through a romantic,
long-term relationship with a man. Her self-esteem, contentment, and
fulfillment are typically derived from intimacy, heart-to-heart, in
marriage.

It’s important to
remember that not all religious people, including evangelicals, see things
the way dear old Dobson does. David G. Myers and Letha Dawson Scanzoni
point out in their book,
What God Has Joined Together? A Christian Case for Gay Marriage
(pg. 112), “Many Christians believe that the key to a successful marriage
is a mutually supportive relationship in all areas of life.”

Gay relationships
are dangerous to Dobson’s concept of marriage precisely because they are
not based on gender inequality. To the extent that gay relationships do
model gender inequality, as in butch-femme role-playing but also in terms
of our sometimes ambiguous gender presentation, they act as a critique of
male/female power relationships, which to someone like Mr. Dobson must
feel like lampooning. Above all, the Culture War is about men like James
Dobson, male privilege, and “the power of testosterone” -- which he might
as well just call power.

The Culture War is a
fight for equality. It’s time we all enlisted.

Patricia Goldsmith
is a member of Long Island Media Watch, a grassroots free media and
democracy watchdog group. She can be
reached at:
plgoldsmith@optonline.net.